The Partisan Divide in Three Sentences

Americans are not nearly as politically divided as conditions in Congress would seem to suggest. The average Democratic or Republican general election voter will have vastly overlapping opinions on most political questions.

The corner of our system where dysfunctional political divisiveness thrives is in our nominating processes. To understand what this means, it would be helpful to summarize the political message that most reliably resonates with the grassroots activists on each side and compare them with a message tailored to appeal to a general election majority.

For the Democrats, the core message most likely to resonate with the base could be summed up as this:

Good government ensures a fair distribution of the nation’s resources, allows everyone to provide for their basic needs, protects diverse cultures and lifestyles by according them appropriate public respect, and keeps the nation at peace through collaboration with partners abroad.

All the major Democratic themes are there without taking them to extremes. Government should protect economic fairness and personal liberty. Military intervention abroad should be avoided at nearly all costs and “tolerance” should be as much of a priority as individual decision making.

In general election races Democrats usually tone down the “fair distribution” language in favor of “opportunity” rhetoric. They back away from the peace language and present a more libertarian interpretation of their positions on social and cultural issues, downplaying their cultural agenda in favor of the language of “personal choice.”

On the Republican side, this is the single sentence message that most reliably resonates with the current crop of activists:

Good government should free job creators from the stifling impact of taxes and regulation while re-establishing the religious, moral and cultural foundations which are the source of our greatness and protecting American supremacy in the wider world.

The Democrats’ desire for fairness and income redistribution is here replaced by an almost religious devotion to business interests and an ambition to see them released from their apparent bondage. Where Democratic activists look to see diverse lifestyles and cultures afforded a sort of enforced public tolerance, Republican caucus-goers want that same energy instead poured into efforts to reinforce a “traditional” culture, usually representing some idealized vision of a historical white identity.

Where Democrats would guarantee peace at almost any price to security, Republican activists (excluding the emerging Paul-wing) want a muscular foreign policy committed to pursuing “enemies” anywhere they may hide around the globe. There is no concern here for the poor since the poor are presumed to be morally inferior. Set corporate interests free from government interference and there will be plenty of jobs for people willing to work. Repair the country’ moral decay and people will make better choices.

These are the messages, reduced to a single run-on sentence, that a Democratic or Republican candidate in most regions of the country could most reliably deliver in a nominating campaign and remain competitive. Neither sentence sums up everything either party stands for or touches on every hot-button theme, but they define a core message that a candidate to could use and at least remain competitive.

While these two sentences fairly well summarize the interests of Democratic and Republican activists, neither of them fits well with the consensus of general election voters. Unfortunately, few general election voters have the time or money to make an impact on the nominating process, so their choices are limited.

The interests of the largest block of general election voters, regardless of party affiliation, can probably be boiled down to this:

Government should meet the public’s needs for infrastructure, justice, national security, and a social safety net with the least possible intrusion into private decision-making and the smallest effective bureaucracy.

In a general election race, both candidates are usually forced to press as close as credibly possible to this statement within the constraints of their primary election positions. However, as overall political participation declines and art of partisan redistricting is refined, candidates are being released from the pressure to run away from primary voters. The primary or caucus with its miniscule participation levels is the only election that matters.

Our political system may in fact be less divided than ever on the issues of greatest importance, but our political processes are producing radically divisive results. Until we see prominent political figures openly bypass the primary process, the mass of general election voters will remain politically orphaned, trapped in a false choice between artificially distant poles. We are unlikely to see the end of dysfunctional politics until we transform the processes that produce it.